Toll roads charge vehicles based upon the number of axles they have.
In other words, you made my point for me. The law is much better than you at doing this, they've literally been doing it for hundreds of years. It's not the impossible task you imagine it to be.
> You can have all the "reasonable person" standards you want, but if you cannot answer what a "reasonable person" would do in a specific scenario under the law you propose, you are presumed to be punting because you know there is no "reasonable" answer.
uhhh......
To quote:
> The reasonable person standard is by no means democratic in its scope; it is, contrary to popular conception, intentionally distinct from that of the "average person," who is not necessarily guaranteed to always be reasonable.
You should read up on this idea a bit before posting further, you've made assumptions that are not true.
> Toll roads charge vehicles based upon the number of axles they have.
So now you've proposed an entirely different kind of law because considering what happens in the application of the original one revealed an issue. Maybe doing this is actually beneficial.
> The law is much better than you at doing this, they've literally been doing it for hundreds of years. It's not the impossible task you imagine it to be.
Judges are not empowered to replace vehicle registration fees or CAFE standards with toll roads even if the original rules are problematic or fail to achieve their intended purpose. You have to go back to the legislature for that, who would have been better to choose differently to begin with, which is only possible if you think through the implications of what you're proposing, which is my point.
In other words, you made my point for me. The law is much better than you at doing this, they've literally been doing it for hundreds of years. It's not the impossible task you imagine it to be.
> You can have all the "reasonable person" standards you want, but if you cannot answer what a "reasonable person" would do in a specific scenario under the law you propose, you are presumed to be punting because you know there is no "reasonable" answer.
uhhh......
To quote:
> The reasonable person standard is by no means democratic in its scope; it is, contrary to popular conception, intentionally distinct from that of the "average person," who is not necessarily guaranteed to always be reasonable.
You should read up on this idea a bit before posting further, you've made assumptions that are not true.